Why Ted Cruz’s Filibuster Was Not Like Rand Paul’s

Senator Cruz represents no new thinking on the part of the GOP—quite the contrary, his whole public persona is based on amplifying the existing Republican stereotype. He’s the perfect movement conservative: articulate, combative, dramatic, but not particularly effective. He frames the conflicts he rides into as showdowns between freedom and socialism—Obama “is moving us day-by-day to being closer to a European socialist nation,” he once said—or, as in the Hagel confirmation hearings, between muscular patriotism and un-American subversion.

He’s avoided taking a clear stand on foreign policy, signaling at times that he thinks Obama isn’t aggressive enough in places like Syria—“We need to be developing a clear, practical plan to go in, locate the [chemical] weapons, secure or destroy them, and then get out. The United States should be firmly in the lead to make sure the job is done right,” he said in June—at other times saying that America should not act as “al-Qaeda’s air force.” He’s a hawk who will strike a dovish pose if a particular intervention, proposed by a Democratic president, isn’t popular.

This buys him some credit with young Ron/Rand Paul supporters who want to think the best of him because they like his posturing on domestic issues, but in an important sense he’s more dangerous to noninterventionists than an open enemy like John McCain or Lindsey Graham is, since Cruz encourages the antiwar right to be complacent and overlook the differences between someone who’s willing to stick his neck out on foreign policy—as both the former congressman and the present senator Paul have been willing to do—and someone whose foreign policy is basically defined by his Republican partisanship. Cruz deserves credit for the good things he’s done, including joining Senator Paul’s drone filibuster, but that credit should not extend to making any mistake about the man’s fundamental character.

Paul’s filibuster was also symbolic, but there’s a tremendous difference between the educational effect of what Paul did—his message was not just aimed at the Republican base—and Cruz’s pitch to the true believers. Cruz’s position is that the Republican Party only needs to be more Republican, as “Republican” has been defined by the talk-radio right in the past 20 years.

There are two problems with that. On a practical political level, that kind of Republicanism cannot win national majorities. And more importantly, it doesn’t deserve to. A Ted Cruz Republican—a Republican’s Republican—not only has no answers to the decline of the American middle class and the extraordinary ineptitude of U.S. global hegemony but refuses even to address the questions. Instead, we get outmoded cliches about socialism and free markets—when in fact what we’re looking at are alternative forms of mixed economy—and jingoism in foreign policy, if occasionally jingoism that opposes wars led by Democrats. These positions only distract from, or indeed exacerbate, the problems of our political economy and global strategy.

In drawing a contrast between Cruz and Paul, one shouldn’t downplay the conventional side of the Kentucky senator. He’s a conservative Republican very much in tune with the party’s activist base, he too draws contrasts between free markets and big government, and even in foreign policy he’s indulged some reflexive right-wing prejudices against foreign aid and sophisticated diplomacy. But that’s not the whole story: he knows his libertarian father’s point of view as well—which supplies reasons other than xenophobia for opposing foreign aid—and one gets the impression that Senator Paul recognizes both the virtues and limitations of the conventional Republican position and Paul père‘s libertarianism alike and is having to come up with a new synthesis of his own, one that doesn’t supply ready-made answers to every question and thus requires a great degree of prudential reflection. This is a practical effort, the fostering of a political philosophy through practice rather than theory or rabble-rousing p.r.

That’s not Rand Paul’s project alone, but he’s the most prominent of the truly post-Bush Republicans. Cruz, who seemed quite happy in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, is something else: a figure straight out of Rush Limbaugh’s dreams, the 2013 model of 2003’s Republican right.

This is not fair to Cruze. To begin with, people can change: there is no such thing as “fundamental character.” People can change their views. For example, during the New Deal era the Midwestern progressives like Senator Burton K. Wheeler started out as left-wing supporters of FDR, but were driven rightward by the court-packing scheme, the NRA, and the rush to war. In our own time, the Snowden revelations and rising anti=interventionist sentiment on the right are driving many in the GOP — including in Congress — are driving people like Cruz in the right direction. Now it makes sense to exercise caution, but it also makes sense to give such people — “fellow travelers,” we might call them — the benefit of a doubt.

Cruz is simply a caricature; a chameleon with differing shades of red. Oh, and green, as he is an effective fundraising tool for those not smart enough to realize the end goal for all the rabble-rousing is simply stuffing the coffers of myriad “conservative” outlets.

I prefer Rand Paul, but I can think of worse leaders than Ted Cruz (Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, for example, who most likely will receive the support of the establishment. The fact that Ron Paul endorsed Cruz shows me the good doctor saw potential in this extremely intelligent attorney.

Ted Cruz is everything wrong with American politics right now. He is the embodiment of a destructive strain of conservative thought that refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the loyal opposition (which is virtually required for successful governance in a democracy) and treats compromise as a dirty word. So long as demagogues like him hold sway over the Republican party, America is effectively ungovernable. How long we can continue like this without suffering serious political and economic decline remains to be seen.

The author first mentions “not only has no answers to the decline of the American middle class” and then “we’re looking at are alternative forms of mixed economy”. They way I see it, the economy has gotten more mixed over time but at the same the middle class has declined.

Ted Cruz last night was like Neo in the first Matrix movie; finally someone stood up to fight the agents… of the Establishment. The Tea Party is fed up with RINOs and will clean them out through primaries next year to purify the GOP or die trying and killing the GOP. Either way, Liberty will win. This ain’t your father’s GOP or even your GOP, boomers, its ours (Gen-Xers) now.

It’s hilarious to read Dems criticizing Cruz for not respecting the opposition.

Obama is the great divider who has yet, in five years, to ever acknowledge a willingness to negotiate with Republicans or even recognize the validity of their opposing views to his socialist, ever expanding government agenda.

@ Justin, how much of what you just said is what you really think? Do you think that there is a place for wishful thinking (and speaking those wishful thoughts aloud as a matter of intraparty diplomacy) in that it gives the establishment time and cover to maybe come back home to the old right?

Cruz wants to “abolish the IRS”. This is just more grandstanding, IMHO. What we need is for Congress to admit that the Income Tax is an excise tax on federal privilege. Then we can begin to fix it. Fix the Taxpayer Bill of Rights to make the IRS follow the law as it is written. Whatever laws the IRS are using to collect taxes, they are not the tax laws of the United States of America. Put in real consequences for transgressions against the law in tax collection.

I think Cruz is a true Constitutional Conservative – not a neocon. Rand Paul is a libertarian dressed up like a CC because he knows libertarians can’t win national elections, yet.

Cruz is the closest thing to a Reagan I have seen since 1980 and, because of that, the establishment will fight him tooth and nail, as they did RR.

There seems to be a shift in the mood of the populace to the far right (libertarianism and CC), so it would be a mistake to underestimate Cruz’s ability and his appeal in this environment.

I feel the GOP will eventually transform itself into something resembling the Tea Party right or it will break apart. Cruz, Paul, Lee, Rubio, and a few others are leading the way to that transformation.

The GOP must stand on principle, as these young leaders do, or it will become a permanent minority party.

Ronald Reagan,
” If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.”

KF, agree with most of your comments, but Rand Paul reminds me more of Ronald Reagan than Cruz does. Paul has that easy going personality that made Reagan successful.

“Cruz, Paul, Lee, Rubio…are leading the way.” I agree with the first three you name, but see Rubio as an opportunist. His support of the Gang of 8 immigration bill shows his fidelity to the donor class. I don’t even see him running unless his mentor Jeb Bush stays out.

A Ted Cruz Republican—a Republican’s Republican—not only has no answers to the decline of the American middle class and the extraordinary ineptitude of U.S. global hegemony but refuses even to address the questions. Instead, we get outmoded cliches about socialism and free markets

This is what Republicanism – as redefined by talk radio over the last 20 years – has become for the most part. A party more interested in stirring up the villagers than in policy.

For the last 5 years (and no doubt for the next 3) it will be little more than “vehemently opposed to anything Obama says,” and politically, a case could be made that it doesn’t need to be much more than that.

Yet as we saw in the years when the GOP ruled the roost in DC during the Bush administration, they are every bit as inept at actually governing than they are passionate about criticizing government. They did such a poor job governing that the voters gladly handed the Congress back to the Democrats in 2006 and the White House 2 years later.

Now, with the middle class shrinking and the economy limping along, it is not enough to sling mud at Obama…the party must make the case that it will be better at governing if once again given the keys to the castle. Cruz isn’t making that case at all.

KF compared Cruz to Reagan, but that comparison is way off base. Reagan’s rhetoric was one thing, but when it came to governing, he knew that compromise was a necessary part of the process. He even compromised with the Soviets, for dog’s sake. In fact that’s the perfect example of the dichotomy between his rhetoric and reality. He famously said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Then went to Moscow and eventually became friends with Mr. Gorbachev.

Cruz is all rhetoric without the ability to compromise, or as they say in Texas, he’s all hat, and no cattle.

“But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.”

Yes, I see the CCs, Tea Party supporters, and libertarians traveling a similar path forming a coalition to add strength to the conservative movement.

The primary diff between libertarians and CCs (true conservatives) seems to be foreign policy, immigration (open borders) and drugs. But there is enough commonality on fiscal and small government / liberty issues to allow much mutual / overlapping support, imo.

“KF compared Cruz to Reagan, but that comparison is way off base. Reagan’s rhetoric was one thing, but when it came to governing, he knew that compromise was a necessary part of the process.”

Imo, it is too soon to conclude this. Being a Senator is not governing as a president or governor does. I see it as advocating for constituents (and special interests) and standing on principle rather than compromising.

It is my hope and expectation that he is smart enough to know when to compromise, if he is ever in an executive postion, such as president.

I disagree, perhaps you just haven’t heard him do so, but I believe you will if you continue to listen.

As a general comment, the reason the previous adminsitration was so “inept” is that it was not truely conservative – it lacked political philosiphical principles, imo.

We need to make a clear distinction between establishment GOP, without principles, and true conservatism, which has clear principles.

The establishment GOP is as you described, but true conservatism is something quite different, imo. The GOP is merely a political party focused on winning elections. Conservatism is a political philosphy focused on advocating and effectuating its principles.

Two points of relevance: (1) I’m not a Ted Cruz fan by any means but we need allies like him on certain issues that, the same way we need allies like Dennis Kucinich on issues of foreign policy.(2)Congressman Peter King and the rest of the Republican Establishment or RINOs criticize Ted Cruz for his stance. I hate the Republican establishment.

Well – if you don’t win elections, the money dries up pretty damn fast.

More importantly, if you don’t win elections, you don’t get to have your agenda enacted.

Cruz and the GOP – both the “establishment” and Tea Party wings – are attempting to enact their agenda by way of political hostage taking. Is this the “conservative principles” KF is talking about? I hope not.

@Monkey with a Grenade: Are you kidding? Gen-Xers voted 52% for Obama. Millenials went 60% for Obama. Further, Gen-Xers are a very small generation compared to either Boomers or Millenials, so their votes don’t have as wide an impact.

The principle difference between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz is that Rand is “pro” immigration and is a libertine on social policy. Cruz is strong on the anti-immigration position, and much more traditional on family and morals. Admittedly, he is ambiguous on foreign policy – it not being his forte.

“It’s hilarious to read Dems criticizing Cruz for not respecting the opposition.

Obama is the great divider who has yet, in five years, to ever acknowledge a willingness to negotiate with Republicans or even recognize the validity of their opposing views to his socialist, ever expanding government agenda.” –Joe H.

Joe, not true. Obama came into office with the attitude of compromise and attempted to work with the GOP, but it was the GOP not Obama that refused to negotiate. This is still going on. Obamacare, which is simply Romneycare expanded nationwide, is the law of the land, passed by Congress (our elected representatives), signed into law, and ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. If a majority did not want Romneycare, the GOP would now control the Senate and Romney would be in the White House repealing his own health insurance program. The voters have spoken: WE WANT OBAMACARE! As far as Obama’s “socialist” agenda, that is simply another of the incessant GOP lies. Look up the definition of socialism before wrongfully accusing Obama of being a socialist.

It would seem that most bloggers on TAC see Rand Paul as the Great Hope for constitutionally limited government, but I’m not buying it. The test of whether someone truly believes in limited government is when it doesn’t produce the results they want. Do they stand back and accept it, or are they all too willing to wield governmental authority to correct the situation? To me, the Life at Conception Act is a perfect illustration of where he stands on that question.

Jim K Joe, not true. Obama came into office with the attitude of compromise and attempted to work with the GOP

Ahh – but consider how many key Republicans, upon Obama’s election in 2008, declared their primary legislative goal was to make Obama fail, and to make him a 1-term President.

To the extent that Obama kept acting as if he wanted to succeed with the agenda he had laid out during the 2008 campaign, and then actually had the audacity to run and win a second term, he demonstrated his unwillingness to compromise on these key issues for the GOP.

Rand Paul is a pro-life Constitutional Conservative implements a discussion of equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human.

Rand Paul introduced The Life at Conception Act to get a grown up serious discussion going about abortion and states that he is aware that certain thought through exceptions,such as the health of the mother,etc. will most likely be involved and included in a final bill.

Very interesting article, and I enjoyed the reader comments as well. I feel like the national discussion is missing this kind of rational input from the conservative side. Maybe I’ve been watching too much Fox.